Yuan v. & Hair Lounge Inc.

Background

The court had previously ordered defendants to provide an updated list of hair designers and hair salon assistants employed at defendants’ salons on or after December 21, 2015. The list was to include names, work nicknames, known mailing and email addresses, telephone numbers for former employees, and employment dates. The parties did not attach the list to their joint status letter as ordered.

Defendants reported that their list was complete but acknowledged that they did not maintain contact information for certain “freelancers” included in the conditionally certified collective. Plaintiffs stated that the list contained only 21 names and therefore could not be complete, and they renewed their request for publication notice at defendants’ expense.

Requests to Amend and Expand the Collective

Plaintiffs also renewed their request to amend their First Amended Complaint to add Hair Lounge III, Inc. as a corporate defendant. They sought to expand the conditionally certified collective to include employees at that company’s salon. Plaintiffs said Hair Lounge III, Inc. operated a third salon under the control of Chen Lung Lu, also known as Edison Lu.

The deadline to amend the pleadings had been April 4, 2019. After that deadline, fact discovery ended, and the court conditionally certified a collective covering hair designers and hair salon assistants at two salons operated by two corporate defendants under the control of Edison Lu or Min Fei Chen, also known as Wendy Chen.

Judge Moses found that plaintiffs had not adequately explained their delay. Their counsel acknowledged that public corporate records, a simple internet search, and Dong Yuan’s work history had identified the third company and location earlier. The court held that plaintiffs had not shown the “good cause” required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) to amend the pleadings after the scheduling deadline. Because of that failure, the court did not consider the proposed amendment under the standards for amendments to pleadings.

Ruling and Notice Requirements

The court denied leave to further amend the pleadings or expand the conditionally certified collective. It explained that further delay would harm potential collective members because the limitations period for each person’s claim generally continues until that person files written consent to join the case.

The court ordered defendants, by January 21, 2020, to post the court-approved Notice and Consent Form in English and Chinese in conspicuous locations at each of the two salons involved in the action. By the same date, plaintiffs’ counsel had to send the notice in both languages by first-class mail to known mailing addresses and by email to known email addresses for potential opt-in plaintiffs who had worked for defendants on or after December 21, 2015.

The parties also had to publish an abbreviated bilingual notice in the World Journal on one weekday and one weekend day on or before February 11, 2020, with defendants paying the publication cost. Beginning January 21, 2020, plaintiffs’ counsel could publish the full notice on counsel’s websites and the abbreviated notice on counsel’s social-media pages. Judge Barbara Moses did not decide the merits of the proposed new claims or the proposed expansion.